If you tax high-wattage items, then I will buy many low-wattage items instead of a single high-wattage item. And if I buy a high-wattage item and power it solar, I will be paying your tax and that isn't fair. You have to tax what is actually causing the problem, and that thing is called electricity.
If people prefer buying inefficient light bulbs, it is because the cost of electricity is cheap. If the cost of electricity is so cheap people are making bad decisions, then the cost of electricity is not reflecting the true cost to society.
I can confirm this. I worked on computers in a warehouse with little to no heat at night, and the hard drives needed to warm-up in the morning before the computers would start.
Maybe someone can make a motherboard that dumps waste heat from the CPU into the hard drive if it is below a certain temperature.:-)
Actually, I seriously did it with the mouse. So this entire thread has helped me out. And it inspired me to lookup a list of firefox shortcut keys. My life is now.1% faster and easier than before, thanks to you!
ctrl-l + tab! That's faster than move hand to mouse, move mouse to upper right corner, then down and left a little, then click, then move hands back to keyboard! danke!:)
I want: 1) To have the source code to the application 2) If I can't, at least conform to open standards
I don't care if it isn't free as in beer, or promoted by a shill company, or coded in BF by the devil himself. If I can tweak it that is good. If it interoperates, that is good.
Why would we ban socializing over the internet, but not socializing over telephone or email or in person? I never understand when a law is proposed that bans X over the internet, but X is perfectly legal when it isn't on the internet. It is legal for people to go into the quiet room in the library and chat, share pictures, photos, and play footsie under the table. But doing the same thing via a computer is illegal? I'm confused.
I love comments where I'm not sure if they are insightful or funny. Is the poster pointing out how complicated it is? Or is the posting pointing out that it just takes one command to fix the problem so it is easy?
UDI? If another connection comes out, the back of my TV set will look like the interior of a Borg Cube.
By the time I got DVI on my DVD player and HTPC, I found my TV had HDMI. Now, I'm told "...it's unlikely that HDMI will become more than a footnote in the epic story of PC display technology..." Well that's just great. Yet another adapter that costs $50 at my local outlet for.45 cents + shipping on ebay. And the excuse that this is "just for PCs" doesn't help since my PC's hook to my TV's (and I'm not alone any more, this is happening more often.)
Many devices today still don't support the existing connections properly, so I have little faith that new connections will improve things. Many TV's have DVI inputs but still overscan. DVDs are still encoded with interlacing. HDCP has connectivity issues like the PS3 debacle. I know people who still tell me that their s-video connection is state of the art. And while most new TVs are using composite cables, that is STILL analog and YUV based instead of digital. The industry is not ready for new connectors.
For an example of connectivity done right, look at USB 2. USB 1, USB 1.1, and USB 2 all use the same connection. The devices negotiate the appropriate speed. Ethernet does this too. Unless there is very very good reason, please don't change the physical connections. Increase the bandwidth in a backward-compatible way if necessary.
So: If you sell with copy protection, you have to accept returns. If you sell without copy protection, then you don't have to accept returns. I love it. It is completely fair, technologically sound, and it forces everyone's hand to make a decision. It gives companies a reason to NOT offer DRM services: because the cost of implementing the technology + the lost money from phony returns would make it economically impossible. It also gives the big companies a way to dig their own graves -- if they mandate DRM, they will lose to the non-DRM services and have to bear additional costs.
FYI: I was convinced of this issue after I read a United Nations survey which reported on every nation (they also broke-down states within large countries like the US), listed their gun-control laws, and the corresponding non-suicide handgun related deaths. In short, it showed that gun control laws are not statistically related to gun-related death rates. What I found interesting, was that deaths are proportional to education rates. Maybe THAT is why the U.S. has such trouble.
I'm trying to find that survey now. I'll post again if I find the link. I read it years ago. It was very eye-opening.
Bomb squad tech #1 - Looks through binoculars: "Gee, looks kinda like a picture of a guy giving us the middle finger" Bomb squad tech #2 - Grabs binoculars from guy #1: "Yeah, and it's only about a 1/2 inch thick. How much C4 can be in there?" Bomb squad tech #3 - "And people are have been walking right by it for hours without anything happening" Bomb squad manager - "OMG IT MUST BE A BOMB! Shut down the city!"
I knew a guy who worked for the postal service's in the mid 90's. At that point mail was being routed by computer: they had special handwriting recognition algorithms that were tuned to scan envelopes and sort them by destination address. Seems like it would be easy enough to put the info into a database at that point. I'm just not sure if they actually do it or not. The capaability is certainly there.
The problem with that reasoning is that you conclude that the police should detonate everything, because anything could be a bomb. There is a the potential risk that this piece of mail I just received has anthrax. It's possible my ThinkGeek order has a bomb in it. By your reasoning, I should call the police and have them detonate it just to be sure. Life is about risks - and blowing up every random LED sign is playing it too safe.
Does the post office keep track of what mails what? I've always wondered this. And since they are requiring it of ISPs, that implies that the USPS already does it.
The arguments made by the legislators are the same arguments we always hear, with the same misunderstandings on how this stuff works. It's like a broken record. All of the following is from a US-centric viewpoint, so please correct me for any differences that apply in Canada:
The Internet is not regulated in Canada. There is no regulation of the relationship between Internet service providers and the providers of Internet content. I don't know about Canada. But in the US, this is not true - there are common carrier laws and FCC's weakened neutrality rules. Is there really nothing equivalent at all in Canada?
First, the Internet has never been truly neutral or equitable with respect to data transmission...preferential content arrangements, filtering and blocking to control network abuse, as well as 'traffic shaping' in order to ensure an acceptable service level for all subscribers, despite the bandwidth-demanding activities of some users. I know of no preferential content arrangements done by any ISP. Is this happening somewhere and I don't know it? This guy implies that it is common. Traffic shaping is done on local networks by businesses, but it is currently not done by ISPs. When it is (Trying to throttle P2P, for example) it is met with outrage. And it certainly isn't necessary to ensure acceptable service. The only reason the service might not be sufficient is if the ISP advertised more bandwidth than they really have.
... impeding competitive market outcomes....rigid net neutrality legislation may prevent such innovation. Except that user's don't have choices in ISPs. There are usually only 2: the local telecom and the local cable company. That's not enough to allow market forces to kick-in. Hence the need for regulation.
...previous business models that attempted to limit consumer access to content (e.g., AOL, Compuserve, otherwise known as 'walled gardens'), have failed... This is completely different. AOL and CompuServe were not ISPs, and they didn't advertise that they were ISPs. That was pre-internet and doesn't apply. Besides, we are talking about subtyle slowing-down internet traffic, not walling it off.
...without differentiated treatment, there may be no incentive to pay for the actual costs, resulting in under investment. The usual FUD about how Google gets a free ride, which isn't true. People think it makes sense if they don't know about peering.
I wrote a quick-and-dirty anti-FUD article in an attempt to correct these misunderstandings. If anyone is fooled by the above arguemnts, point them there.
The US government doesn't design and build trucks. If they need something shipped, they use a shipping company. If the president needs to make a speech, they buy microphones and pay TV stations. Space should be no different.
This is just a small step toward the commercialization of space, and the use of off-the-shelf parts to get a job done. Perhaps one day, the Virgin Galactic, Armadillo Aerospace, and Scaled Composites will be bidding to deliver the next satellite into orbit around Mars.
I wrote a long response to your post, about orthodoxy, and who defines the meaning of a text, and organized religion, and some philosophical references to the human heart, but I deleted it all because I'd much rather ask you this question:
What do YOU believe? (You can email me your reply if you prefer)
The Nicene Council is what you are referring to, and they defined what it is to be a Catholic (which meant "universal" about 1.5 to 2 thousand years ago) and it is based solely on the Old and New Testaments. Even more to the point, it defined the old and new testaments. Today, the Nicene Council's decisions are no longer considered universal, and most Christians do not call themselves "Catholics."
John 3:16 is far more universal than the Nicene Creed, or the concept of the Holy Trinity.
Re:Are we really making it better for us, or worse
on
Finding New Code
·
· Score: 1
I'm curious about these companies because un my experience, companies take licenses very seriously. Were these small companies or large companies? Were they clueless idiots in general, or just on licenses? Was this done out of malice or lack of understanding? Did you press the issue to them? If so, what was their reaction.
If you are going to completely ignore the EULA, why are you not just pirating it in the first place?
Because people should be paid for their work. But corporate lawyers can't tell me how to use my personal computer. Are you saying that those two ideals are in conflict?
A better idea would be to tax them. An even better idea would be to increase the energy tax. That way you force people to make more energy-efficient decisions about all products, not just one particular type of light bulb. This is a case where economics can work for you, not against you. Bans like this also get complicated: What about cases where incandecent is the only option? What if someone makes a hybrid bulb? What if someone makes a more efficient incandecent? It all comes back to legislating technology (light bulbs), instead of legislating the real problem (energy use).
Slashdot Mirror
If you tax high-wattage items, then I will buy many low-wattage items instead of a single high-wattage item. And if I buy a high-wattage item and power it solar, I will be paying your tax and that isn't fair. You have to tax what is actually causing the problem, and that thing is called electricity.
If people prefer buying inefficient light bulbs, it is because the cost of electricity is cheap. If the cost of electricity is so cheap people are making bad decisions, then the cost of electricity is not reflecting the true cost to society.
I can confirm this. I worked on computers in a warehouse with little to no heat at night, and the hard drives needed to warm-up in the morning before the computers would start.
:-)
Maybe someone can make a motherboard that dumps waste heat from the CPU into the hard drive if it is below a certain temperature.
Actually, I seriously did it with the mouse. So this entire thread has helped me out. And it inspired me to lookup a list of firefox shortcut keys. My life is now .1% faster and easier than before, thanks to you!
ctrl-l + tab! That's faster than move hand to mouse, move mouse to upper right corner, then down and left a little, then click, then move hands back to keyboard! :)
danke!
I agree with your ordering. I guess I should have used bullets, not an ordered list. The real point is more that the politics are irrelevant.
I want:
1) To have the source code to the application
2) If I can't, at least conform to open standards
I don't care if it isn't free as in beer, or promoted by a shill company, or coded in BF by the devil himself. If I can tweak it that is good. If it interoperates, that is good.
Earthlink started this. My local ISP (Cavalier Telephone) has been doing this for 6 months.
Why would we ban socializing over the internet, but not socializing over telephone or email or in person? I never understand when a law is proposed that bans X over the internet, but X is perfectly legal when it isn't on the internet. It is legal for people to go into the quiet room in the library and chat, share pictures, photos, and play footsie under the table. But doing the same thing via a computer is illegal? I'm confused.
I love comments where I'm not sure if they are insightful or funny. Is the poster pointing out how complicated it is? Or is the posting pointing out that it just takes one command to fix the problem so it is easy?
UDI? If another connection comes out, the back of my TV set will look like the interior of a Borg Cube.
.45 cents + shipping on ebay. And the excuse that this is "just for PCs" doesn't help since my PC's hook to my TV's (and I'm not alone any more, this is happening more often.)
By the time I got DVI on my DVD player and HTPC, I found my TV had HDMI. Now, I'm told "...it's unlikely that HDMI will become more than a footnote in the epic story of PC display technology..." Well that's just great. Yet another adapter that costs $50 at my local outlet for
Many devices today still don't support the existing connections properly, so I have little faith that new connections will improve things. Many TV's have DVI inputs but still overscan. DVDs are still encoded with interlacing. HDCP has connectivity issues like the PS3 debacle. I know people who still tell me that their s-video connection is state of the art. And while most new TVs are using composite cables, that is STILL analog and YUV based instead of digital. The industry is not ready for new connectors.
For an example of connectivity done right, look at USB 2. USB 1, USB 1.1, and USB 2 all use the same connection. The devices negotiate the appropriate speed. Ethernet does this too. Unless there is very very good reason, please don't change the physical connections. Increase the bandwidth in a backward-compatible way if necessary.
FYI: I was convinced of this issue after I read a United Nations survey which reported on every nation (they also broke-down states within large countries like the US), listed their gun-control laws, and the corresponding non-suicide handgun related deaths. In short, it showed that gun control laws are not statistically related to gun-related death rates. What I found interesting, was that deaths are proportional to education rates. Maybe THAT is why the U.S. has such trouble.
I'm trying to find that survey now. I'll post again if I find the link. I read it years ago. It was very eye-opening.
They are called Binoculars
Bomb squad tech #1 - Looks through binoculars: "Gee, looks kinda like a picture of a guy giving us the middle finger"
Bomb squad tech #2 - Grabs binoculars from guy #1: "Yeah, and it's only about a 1/2 inch thick. How much C4 can be in there?"
Bomb squad tech #3 - "And people are have been walking right by it for hours without anything happening"
Bomb squad manager - "OMG IT MUST BE A BOMB! Shut down the city!"
I knew a guy who worked for the postal service's in the mid 90's. At that point mail was being routed by computer: they had special handwriting recognition algorithms that were tuned to scan envelopes and sort them by destination address. Seems like it would be easy enough to put the info into a database at that point. I'm just not sure if they actually do it or not. The capaability is certainly there.
The problem with that reasoning is that you conclude that the police should detonate everything, because anything could be a bomb. There is a the potential risk that this piece of mail I just received has anthrax. It's possible my ThinkGeek order has a bomb in it. By your reasoning, I should call the police and have them detonate it just to be sure. Life is about risks - and blowing up every random LED sign is playing it too safe.
Does the post office keep track of what mails what? I've always wondered this. And since they are requiring it of ISPs, that implies that the USPS already does it.
... impeding competitive market outcomes....rigid net neutrality legislation may prevent such innovation. Except that user's don't have choices in ISPs. There are usually only 2: the local telecom and the local cable company. That's not enough to allow market forces to kick-in. Hence the need for regulation.
...previous business models that attempted to limit consumer access to content (e.g., AOL, Compuserve, otherwise known as 'walled gardens'), have failed... This is completely different. AOL and CompuServe were not ISPs, and they didn't advertise that they were ISPs. That was pre-internet and doesn't apply. Besides, we are talking about subtyle slowing-down internet traffic, not walling it off.
...without differentiated treatment, there may be no incentive to pay for the actual costs, resulting in under investment. The usual FUD about how Google gets a free ride, which isn't true. People think it makes sense if they don't know about peering.I wrote a quick-and-dirty anti-FUD article in an attempt to correct these misunderstandings. If anyone is fooled by the above arguemnts, point them there.
Thank you.
You should put the conversation transcript on hyperlogos.org. After all, it is "...a compendium of information which I know or have researched..."
The US government doesn't design and build trucks. If they need something shipped, they use a shipping company. If the president needs to make a speech, they buy microphones and pay TV stations. Space should be no different.
This is just a small step toward the commercialization of space, and the use of off-the-shelf parts to get a job done. Perhaps one day, the Virgin Galactic, Armadillo Aerospace, and Scaled Composites will be bidding to deliver the next satellite into orbit around Mars.
I wrote a long response to your post, about orthodoxy, and who defines the meaning of a text, and organized religion, and some philosophical references to the human heart, but I deleted it all because I'd much rather ask you this question:
What do YOU believe? (You can email me your reply if you prefer)
The Nicene Council is what you are referring to, and they defined what it is to be a Catholic (which meant "universal" about 1.5 to 2 thousand years ago) and it is based solely on the Old and New Testaments. Even more to the point, it defined the old and new testaments. Today, the Nicene Council's decisions are no longer considered universal, and most Christians do not call themselves "Catholics."
John 3:16 is far more universal than the Nicene Creed, or the concept of the Holy Trinity.
Gattaca
I'm curious about these companies because un my experience, companies take licenses very seriously. Were these small companies or large companies? Were they clueless idiots in general, or just on licenses? Was this done out of malice or lack of understanding? Did you press the issue to them? If so, what was their reaction.
I would love to hear more.
A better idea would be to tax them. An even better idea would be to increase the energy tax. That way you force people to make more energy-efficient decisions about all products, not just one particular type of light bulb. This is a case where economics can work for you, not against you. Bans like this also get complicated: What about cases where incandecent is the only option? What if someone makes a hybrid bulb? What if someone makes a more efficient incandecent? It all comes back to legislating technology (light bulbs), instead of legislating the real problem (energy use).